tv Forbes on FOX FOX Business March 8, 2015 3:00am-3:31am EDT
theirs is a war story that deserves to be told. i'm oliver north. good night. on. >> i agree. >> see you tomorrow, everyone. unions all worked up over a new bill that could get more people back to work. hi, everyone. i'm brenda buttner. this is "bulls and bears." as the economy adds 300,000 jobs last month, big labor taking on republican governor scott walker over private sector jobs. this monday he is planning to sign a law protecting private workers from being forced to join a worker and pay union dues. is that the ticket to get even more americans working? here they are, the bulls and bears this week.
welcome to everybody. should workers everywhere love it? >> i think they should. workers everywhere do love it. look at some of the numbers. 74% of americans want to be in right to work states. when you talk about workers themselves, percentage point lower unemployment in right-to-work states and 2012 editorial in "wall street journal" said the last ten years previous to that, right-to-work compensation had gone up four times that, states that were not right-to-work. look at michigan when you had the right-to-work, how many people dropped out of unions? americans want a choice. when taft-hartly came in 1947 which meant you had to be part of a union to work at a place, that made those illegal. it went from 6.6% in private enterprise. 93.4% businesses think unions are inefficient and harm business. i go with the majority.
>> these go to private companies and say it's illegal to have all your workers in a union. we see the decline in unions led to a depression in wages. people are going back to work. the new jobs numbers this week are showing us we are at a 5.5% unemployment. wages are flat. we see that correlation as there is a decline, wages are not going up. unions bargain on behalf of everyone, not just the people in their union. >> the numbers do tell a different story don't they? >> i'm scratching my head, with all due respect to emily. i don't understand where she is getting her numbers. in almost every metric right-to-work states are outperforming nonright-to-work states. employment rates are growing
much faster than the states that don't have right-to-work. per capita income once you adjust for cost of living, it's much higher. union membership in right-to-work states is dropping dramatically. across the board incomes are up, employment is up. what more could you work from a law? this is benefitting workers across the board. i think every state will have right-to-work because it makes economic sense. >> these numbers are right. a state is poaching jobs from another state. imagine one state didn't have to do the clean air act a lot of factories would move there because they could be dirty and create jobs there for a nation as a whole it's not as obvious the benefits having a situation.
wages are going to go lower without unions. they are artificialry raising wages. if you want low unemployment rate and low wages, unions are bad. >> melissa, go after it. >> that's ridiculous. it's like you can't do math. if you look at the data, the reason wages are lower right now because since 2007 the only jobs we added have been at the very high end and at the mcdonald's level. we lost all the middle class jobs. the manufacturing jobs where the unions were because they went overseas because of the control. you talk about unions driving up wages, no they have driven all those jobs out of the country. you're crazy. >> emily, what do you think? >> specifically on the middle class manufacturing jobs the same period we had this many months in a row of job growth in the mid '90s to early 2000.
in that period we lost a couple hundred thousand manufacturing jobs as opposed to these past five years we gained 800,000 manufacturing jobs. >> that's not true. since 2007 we lost all the middle class jobs. if you look at the data from the bureau labor statistics, we are negative on job creation in that group. >> why didn't scott walker support it up until a couple of weeks ago? >> scott walker has gone up against the unions for years now. and won. gary b. what does that mean to wisconsin? >> i think now wisconsin is going to join the other states that are seeing continued economic revival. jonas pointed out one fact i would like to take issue with. in states that have right to work, personal income is growing 12% more than in states that don't have right-to-work. maybe we are looking at a different set of facts. i can't see any economic benefit to not doing it. i agree with one point he made
as the states have right-to-work, people will migrate to those states if every state does it, we'll all be back to square one. everyone's economic level will have risen. >> jonas, response? >> the wages are better because they are moving jobs, companies are saying that is a state i can operate in. that is a good thing for that state. employees in that state. i bet there's income losses where the jobs are leaving from and going to that state. for the whole country it's not as obvious the benefits. again, i think you would have lower unemployment without unions. the opposite of what goes on in europe. to all these jobs going away because of unions abroad that is a separate issue. most auto jobs are unionized abroad. we are not losing those jobs to germany. they get all kinds of unions in japan and germany. a lot of trucking jobs are not going abroad. they still have to truck stuff. what you are creating is higher unemployment in a higher
artificial wages union in america. >> the facts are the facts. you can talk about ideas talk about what you want personally your ideology. "wall street journal" did an editorial. 2012 they said the last ten years right-to-work states compensation increased four times that of not right-to-work states. i don't understand how to say that any more clearly. >> the pay was a full percentage point lower. people are going to get out of unions. you've seen it over and over. americaned shut have the choice to get into unions or choice to get out of unions. >> that's what the bottom line is. it is supposed to be about choice. this is an idea that is totally antiquated and out of its time. who on this panel has been part of a union? i have. you are forced to join, you are forced to pay deuce. it wasn't something that made sense to me. i wasn't allowed to work in the
work place unless i paid this group of people that was supposedly bargaining on my behalf. i didn't agree with what they were doing. i was forced to pay them. felt like the mafia. felt like i was shaken down. >> is this the same situation? >> yeah. to me i was forced to pay. they didn't do anything for me. >> everybody be quiet please. i want to get emily in for a second. union membership has plummeted over the last decade. aren't workers voting? >> it has. in illinois when there are these public/private partnerships which are less clear, they are no longer able to be unionized. it's declining for a couple of reasons. also our economy just looks very different. jobs are coming through in all
sorts of new ways. we are not necessarily training people for them. we are still living off a couple of benefits of unions like bargaining and health insurance, but we need new models across the board. >> john, last word. >> dropped out of screen actors guild because i was in a tv show and years later they tried to get my video game money for me. that's why people drop out of unions. i paid in for no reason. people understand that. brad pitt's job is not going to china any time soon. >> okay. i'm sorry, we've got to go, guys. thanks. cavuto on business 20 minutes from now. >> first illegals now tax hikes? now the next executive action from the white house could hit everyone's house. you want real proof we will never get entitlements under control? we can't even fake getting them under control. i'll explain. see you soon. >> thanks. we can't wait.
detainees getting back in the game? our top intel guys saying 185 released gitmo guys are getting back in the terror fight. john, you say this is why closing gitmo is too costly on so many measures. >> it is. as our friend tracy burns said a couple of weeks ago, if they are not going to rot in hell, let them rot in jail. i don't care about closing guantanamo bay, but they need to be housed somewhere. that is our facility. you say they've been down there so long they are ineffective. nelson mandela was in prison 27 years and came out for good and ran a country. camp boco gave us the leadership of isis. these guys are there for a reason. they are not there for parking tickets. there is no reason to let them out because your political ideology about guantanamo bay. >> why close gitmo if there is proof they are going back to the fight? >> the biggest reason to close it is it actually does have more
harm than good. there are currently 129 die tan'stan detainees in gitmo. but the people being recruited is so many more than that. it is so costly. >> what? >> i don't understand that. >> they talk about the fact that we have this and hold them. if we have them and have the proof, we should bring them on to american soil and charge them. >> we have to decide what we are doing here. the same day we are flying sortees, let's decide whether we are going after these people and trying to kill them or releasing them back to the battlefield? pick a side. pick a policy and stick to it. >> every time you let somebody out of any prison a certain
percentage are going back to whatever got them back in prison. we don't put everybody in jail to negate that totally. forget the morality of running a police state. these are young people in this prison. to keep them in there for life, that is $50 million a head for life. are they going to each do $50 million in damage? that seems unlikely. you can put an ankle bracelet on them. there has to be a way to mitigate that damage to society. $50 million perfect person to for life will bankrupt us. >> these are not criminals. they are terrorists and they are going back to try to kill us. >> exactly.
we have it down in cuba. if we move it here, the point is i'm in favor of the idea of gitmo. look this is not just some criminal out there that did a smash-and-grab and we are letting it in and he does a carjacking. this is equivalent of mass murders out there could they cost $50 million in damage? yes. they bombed the world trade center, for crying out loud. as to emily's argument on it's a recruiting tool. i don't get that. are you saying there are terrorists out there saying i don't know if i want to be a terrorist. they have gitmo? yeah. sign me up. that doesn't make any sense at all. these people out there hate the united states whether they are at gitmo or it's club med down there. >> thanks, guys. that's got to be the last word. >> cashin' in over an hour from now. what do you have coming up? >> forget what she is e-mailing
it's what hillary clinton is saying about your money that will shock you. is legal marijuana making america more dangerous and violent? see you at 11:30. we'll be watching. up here first -- >> obamacare is here to stay. >> obamacare may be here to stay, but subsidies may not be. why that could be supremely painful to your health care premium.
americans bracing for a supreme court decision on health care law subsidies that some say could mean severe price spikes for everyone. gary b., if the justices strike it down price is going up? >> absolutely. the whole essence is to boil down obamacare into one thing. it's a tax on everyone that can't afford to pay. so the people like myself, if you will have to pay. i've seen my premiums gone up 30%. if everyone chips in, we'll be able to pay for the 30 million or so uninsured. even with obamacare right now, 30 million uninsured. it's clearly working, if you will. >> emily, you've been out there protesting. why? >> this law, the impact of this case are huge. there are 36 states that have federal marketplaces, which means they did not set up their
own. they are getting the subsidies. that is the question in this case. if the justices rule against the government and say they can no longer get subsidies in these federal marketplaces this will create the death spiral people were so concerned about obamacare that has not come to fruition. it will if justices rule against obamacare. >> does that make sense to you? >> it's your money either way. you are talking about if you take the subsidies away, everybody's health care premiums will spike through the roof. where do you think the money comes from? the exact same people, your tax dollars. there isn't a money tree in washington where this money is miraculously coming out of the sky. it's hard-working people's money either way paying for people who couldn't afford insurance before because they use a lot of insurance out of the system. they use a lot of health care because they are already ill or not working. we are all paying for everyone else to have insurance.
>> emily is right. it is the key component of it. it's unclear what will happen because if the government mandated you go to college and subsidized everybody who couldn't afford to, removing that subsidy isn't going to make tuition go up. it will go down because there is less artificial demand for insurance. that's one thing to think about. another thing, the people that are going to get the subsidies, this is an economic show so we'll talk about are the poor people who don't have jobs to pay for it. any insurance executive will tell you off the record those people are not very healthy. they are more likely to smoke, be overweight have diabetes and a whole host of conditions they are not looking to pay for. i don't know what the effect will be on the other tears of people paying insurance. other pieces mate stay in place like a mandate. >> i've got to get john in. >> subsidies cover as much as 89% of the premium. try taking away something you've given to somebody for free. that's why we have a hard time
dealing with entitlements. this will be a mess. i don't know how bad a mess but the supreme court -- this is a political court. they rule along ideological lines. they rule according to their political leanings. they are going to do what they think is best politically. i'm not sure what that is. >> we'll know soon. thank you for joining us. personal spending may be down, but spending to pamper our pets is soaring. just ask our bulls and bears mascot. there he is ramon.
>>. >> predictions. >> i predict we'll see this picture every time someone complains about the billions this winter is costing consumers. this is why there are delays and cancellations to avoid this. >> airlines have been hit because of what melissa is talking about. i own american airlines. i think it's a good seasonal buy. up 10% by spring. >> i don't like it right now. >> what do you like? >> i like apple. two reasons. more on the apple watch. added to the dow it's up 30% by the end of the year. >> jonas? >> too much apple these days. your prediction? >> i'm not the only one lavishing money on my pets. up over 4%.
dog spending is going crazy. idex up 15% a year. they do blood tests. >> love the dog not sure about the owner. >> our ratings are going up. neil is next. . get ready for the executive order to end all executive orders. >> some people are interpreting this that you left the door open to the president raising taxes by executive action. is that possible? >> what i will leave open is always the president's ability to use his executive authority to move the country in the right direction. >> did you hear that? because i did. i'm neil cavuto. not so earnest suggesting the president is open to raising taxes through executive action. it works for illegal immigration, right? if you can't run a tax hike through congres